Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

Indeed. When Sky was the only bidder it was in their interests to keep their payments as low as possible. As soon as a rival came on the scene Sky's bids shot through the roof due to the secret bidding format. If the companies could compete in an auction then the prices may not be as high but because they have to submit secret bids they are possibly paying more for the product to ensure that they get it.

Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

Indeed. When Sky was the only bidder it was in their interests to keep their payments as low as possible. As soon as a rival came on the scene Sky's bids shot through the roof due to the secret bidding format. If the companies could compete in an auction then the prices may not be as high but because they have to submit secret bids they are possibly paying more for the product to ensure that they get it.

My memory of an economic strategy games module I did at University is that no matter what style of auction you do, on average, the final price is remarkably similar to what people would have bidded anyway i.e. it reaches the price the market can bear regardless of which method is chosen whether that's sealed bids or eBay public bids.

Moggy wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

GD is a right wing libertarian, the competition thing was me making a joke at him.

I don't recognise the term left wing libertarian unless used as an Oxymoron.

Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

Indeed. When Sky was the only bidder it was in their interests to keep their payments as low as possible. As soon as a rival came on the scene Sky's bids shot through the roof due to the secret bidding format. If the companies could compete in an auction then the prices may not be as high but because they have to submit secret bids they are possibly paying more for the product to ensure that they get it.

My memory of an economic strategy games module I did at University is that no matter what style of auction you do, on average, the final price is remarkably similar to what people would have bidded anyway i.e. it reaches the price the market can bear regardless of which method is chosen whether that's sealed bids or eBay public bids.

Moggy wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

GD is a right wing libertarian, the competition thing was me making a joke at him.

I don't recognise the term left wing libertarian unless used as an Oxymoron.

That can't always be true surely? if Sky are prepared to pay £1bn for a package but BT were only prepared to pay £500m then Sky would end up paying £1bn in a sealed bid auction but just over £500m in a traditional auction.

Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

Indeed. When Sky was the only bidder it was in their interests to keep their payments as low as possible. As soon as a rival came on the scene Sky's bids shot through the roof due to the secret bidding format. If the companies could compete in an auction then the prices may not be as high but because they have to submit secret bids they are possibly paying more for the product to ensure that they get it.

My memory of an economic strategy games module I did at University is that no matter what style of auction you do, on average, the final price is remarkably similar to what people would have bidded anyway i.e. it reaches the price the market can bear regardless of which method is chosen whether that's sealed bids or eBay public bids.

Moggy wrote:

Tomous wrote:

Moggy wrote:

Grumpy David wrote:This Duopoly between Sky and BT is so much worse than the Monopoly Sky used to have.

Are you saying that competition in the free market is bad for consumers.

I actually agree with you though, giving sport to Setanta/ESPN/BT made everything worse.

Competition would be allowing both channels to show the same games. That's the only way itnwoild benefit the consumer.

Splitting the games just screws the consumer.

GD is a right wing libertarian, the competition thing was me making a joke at him.

I don't recognise the term left wing libertarian unless used as an Oxymoron.

It is. Though on Sky you'll also need the base package (£22) but you'll get all 10 channels. I don't know if Sky are keeping the HD charge (in which case bung on another 6 quid, I think). BT customers are limited to Main Event and the exclusive, albeit sporadic, bonus channel "Extra".

NowTV customers can get all the Sky Sports channels in 720p for £34 a month.

Just signed up for BTs top package at just £18/mth, plus recontracted Infinity 2 broadband and evening/weekend calls phone for just £31.99/mth. Was paying £67 for b'band and phone, plus Sky was £38 on top.

Will be cancelling Sky tomorrow (have to call them, can't do onlineeven after going through the cancellation screens. Bastards).

With BT, 4x existing Now Tv for Sky Sports daily/weekly passes and Entertainment pass, plus Amazon Prime I think we'll be fine without Sky! And about £55 a month better off

Straight out of the blocks, already there are scheduling issues for BT customers. On Saturday 26th August, Main Event will be airing Bournemouth vs. Manchester City, and joining England v West Indies cricket in-progress at 3pm. And then on the Sunday 27th August, Main Event will be airing Day 3 of the Test, and instead choosing to forgo West Brom vs. Stoke (this may air on Extra). They will then abruptly stop coverage of the cricket at 3:30pm to air Liverpool vs. Arsenal.

Just had my BT TV box (Ultra HD version) installed this morning. It's tiny compared to the Sky HD+ box it's replacing! BT Sport Ultra HD channel looks amazing and that's just watching the advert for the stuff you can watch. There's some rerun of footy highlights on later which I'll be watching just to go "ooooohh arrrrrh" at

We now have:- BT TV Total Entertainment (top package with all available channels that don't cost more e.g. sky Movies) for £18/mth- Now Tv (4 boxes) with Entertainment (£1.39/mth) and Movies (£1.99/mth), plus will buy day or week Sky Sports pass as needed (£6.99/£10.99)- Amazon Prime Video (part of the £59/year cost when signed up to Prime)- Freeview HD- Freesat HD

Sky Cinema (includes High Definition): £10 a monthSky Sports (in Standard Definition): £18 a month up to £27.50 (£7.50 a month discount applied if you agree to a new 18 month contract)Sky Sports High Definition and Ultra HD Charge (Box Sets bundle required): £6 a month; or £2 extra if you take the full package and agree a new 18 month contract.

NowTV meanwhile has announced a price increase to £7.99 a month for Entertainment.

Basically if you're paying full price for it you're a mentalist. What Sky don't like to shout about is that around 80% of the channels available in the Original bundle are FREE TO AIR. In terms of value, their base package vs NowTV (which includes 720p HD, on-demand and box sets) is genuinely appalling. All Sky customers are blatantly paying for the sports rights of the Premier League (though at least Sky Sports Mix is included).

Go through the "I want to cancel" process online. They throw them up every so often. Called their bluff on the Kids package (£2.99 full price!) and they let me cancel! Cue a hasty re-activation!Edit, just logged into my Now Tv account and the Entertainment pass is up in 15 days. Just done the cancel route and they offered me £3.49 per month for 4 months instead of the new £7.99 per ,on the price.It's crazy how cheap they do it compared to Sky box sets considering they are part of Sky!

Last edited by KingK on Thu Jul 27, 2017 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.